satireprojectfandomcom-20200215-history
What satire is
Especially after reading What satire is not, one must ask, What exactly '''is' satire?'' If we return to the bookcase metaphor from What satire is not, we will remember the definition there of a bookcase as "something that holds books." But this is a very incomplete definition. For example, the bag in the illustration on the right is holding books, but it is not a bookcase. There are certain features of a bookcase that set it apart from other things that hold books. Satire has similar features that set it apart from other genres that expose the follies of humanity. This article describes these features in detail. Satire is attack One of the primary differences between comedy and satire is that comedy's primary purpose is humour. Satire's primary purpose is not so much humour, but an attack on something of which the author disapproves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire Humour, if it is present, is a means, not an end. In Pride and Prejudice, we learn that "Mr. Bennet's property consisted almost entirely in an estate of two thousand pounds a year, which, unfortunately for his daughters, was entailed, in default of heirs male, on a distant relation ..." This means that, even though Mr. and Mrs. Bennet have five daughters to provide for, after Mr. Bennet's death they will be at the mercy of his cousin, Mr. Collins, who will inherit the estate by default. Later in the book, Mr. Bennet says to his family: “About a month ago I received this letter, and about a fortnight ago I answered it; for I thought it a case of some delicacy, and requiring early attention. It is from my cousin, Mr. Collins, who, when I am dead, may turn you all out of this house as soon as he pleases.” “Oh, my dear,” cried his wife, “I cannot bear to hear that mentioned! Pray do not talk of that odious man. I do think it is the hardest thing in the world that your estate should be entailed away from your own children; and I am sure, if I had been you, I should have tried long ago to do something or other about it.” Jane and Elizabeth attempted to explain to her the nature of an entail. They had often attempted it before, but it was a subject on which Mrs. Bennet was beyond the reach of reason; and she continued to rail bitterly upon the cruelty of settling an estate away from a family of five daughters, in favor of a man whom nobody cared anything about. Jane Austen is using humour to show her disapproval of entailing an estate away from someone's children just because they are female. Humour is a means to the end of attacking this ridiculous practice. Satirists can attack in other ways, such as through contempt, as in The Screwtape Letters, when Screwtape mentions the idea of making the patient either a patriot or a pacifist during World War II: Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the "cause", in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of Pacifism.... Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours--and the more "religious" (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here ... Screwtape talks about humans as if they are objects and clearly sees them as inferior beings, even calling us "a revolting hybrid" of spirit and animal. Unlike Austen, C. S. Lewis attacks human folly through contempt and scorn, rather than humour. Satire is arguendo Arguendo is a legal term which means "for the sake of argument". Arguendo is when someone pretends that an idea is true or acceptable for the express purpose of showing why it could not possibly be true or acceptable. They do not agree with the idea, but they pretend to agree with it in order to show why it fails; they do it "for the sake of argument." Satirists do this all the time. The subject of a satire's attack is often portrayed in the work as something normal or accepted, and other characters may even believe that it is desirable. A few examples of this: * Nineteen Eighty-Four: A dystopian novel by George Orwell. Nineteen Eighty-Four portrays the totalitarian society of Oceania, where protagonist Winston Smith lives. Because of its bleak narrative and pessimistic ending, it may come as a surprise to some people that this novel is actually a satire. George Orwell satirizes totalitarianism by portraying a world where it is the norm. Of course, he does not agree at all with totalitarianism—he is vehemently against it—but he describes a world where it is accepted, in order to show why it is undesirable and does not work. * Pride and Prejudice: Jane Austen is more direct about what she approves of and disapproves of. The characters that she approves of are portrayed as strong, intelligent people, and the characters that she disapproves of are portrayed as silly and insignificant. But arguendo is still present in her novel, if in a different form from Orwell's. She depicts silly, stupid, or immoral characters precisely because she doesn't think they are acceptable. She does not like these characters, but she includes them in order to show exactly why she doesn't like them. * The Screwtape Letters: C. S. Lewis is not on Screwtape's side. He does not wish for humanity's damnation at the hands of demons. He does not think that God is an evil hypocrite. But, for the purpose of his novel, he puts himself in the mind of someone who does think these things, "for the sake of argument." In order to highlight the way people allow themselves to be tempted into sin, he would have had to ask himself, "Assuming, for the sake of argument, that humanity's shortcomings are left unexamined, how might it affect us?" This is arguendo. C. S. Lewis does not actually approve of humanity's shortcomings, but he depicts them anyway, in order to show why we should work on them. Why do satirists use arguendo? Why not simply portray the author's vision of an ideal world? Wouldn't that get the message across equally well? It is important to understand why satirists choose to go the opposite route: To attack the subject directly: Depicting the author's idea of a utopia might help readers see what the author wants us to be like, but it won't tell us anything about what behaviours to avoid. The purpose of satire is to attack things the author doesn't like, not to praise things the author does like. To bring the subject to our attention: The subject of attack is usually something that is common or prevalent in the author's society, as is the case with Pride and Prejudice and The Screwtape Letters; or it is a cautionary tale about something that the author fears will become prevalent in their society, as is the case with Nineteen Eighty-Four. Because the subject is usually something that readers experience on a regular basis, it is not something they are bound to notice if it is shown in the novel the way they are used to seeing it. For example, consider once again the opening passage of Pride and Prejudice: It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters. If Jane Austen had left out this opening passage, and then proceeded to depict Mrs. Bennet making this very assumption, readers would not have noticed it. Because so many people make this assumption without realizing it, seeing a character do it would seem perfectly natural. By putting the idea into words, as if she agrees with it, Austen forces us to notice that it is there, and to question its validity. When Austen says that a rich, single man wanting a wife "is a truth universally acknowledged", what she really means is that people act as if it is a truth universally acknowledged. She holds a mirror up to her readers, and shows them what kinds of foolish assumptions their actions reveal. To prove its point: A satirist does not simply say, "I don't like this because it's stupid." If this is all the author manages to get across, it won't convince anyone else. Nor does the author merely tell us why the idea is stupid. That would involve a logical argument in essay format, which is not satire. Using arguendo allows the author to pursue the subject to its logical conclusion, and show us why it is stupid. Nineteen Eighty-Four is saying, "Totalitarianism is bad because it serves only a small number of people and takes away our privacy and our freedom of thought." Pride and Prejudice is saying, "The stereotypical Victorian English person is intolerable because they are obsessed with decorum, wealth, and status, to the exclusion of all else. This causes them to fuss about ultimately unimportant things and ignore larger, more pressing issues." The Screwtape Letters is saying, "People who let their guard down when it comes to religion are masters of their own demise, because they make themselves easy prey to temptation." Satire's purpose is to prove a point about the subject that it's attacking, and it can only do this by facing it head-on. Arguendo is an invaluable aspect of satire. The author can use it to depict its subject in a way that makes its flaws obvious to the readers. Satire is indirect Satire is a sneaky. The author never comes right out and says, "I disapprove of this, and these are my reasons why, and I think everyone should do this instead." Satire involves reading between the lines. For instance, in Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth's older sister, Jane, is in love with Mr. Bingley. She has become good friends with his two sisters, particularly Caroline Bingley. But these sisters consider themselves superior to her, and their friendship is more condescension than respect. Jane refuses to see this, no matter what Elizabeth tells her. Then, when the sisters and Mr. Bingley go back to London, Elizabeth can see clearly that they are scheming to get him away from Jane so that he will not marry her. But Jane refuses to believe this, insisting that "Caroline is incapable of wilfully deceiving anyone." Pride and Prejudice, p. 113-114 Earlier in the book, Elizabeth had said to her, "Oh! you are a good deal too apt you know, to like people in general. You never see a fault in any body. All the world are good and agreeable in your eyes. I never heard you speak ill of a human being in my life." Pride and Prejudice, p. 17 We now see an example of this, as she is blind to Caroline's deception. In this novel, Jane is one of the "good" characters. Austen is not making an attack on those who are pure of heart, as Jane Bennet is. But she is trying to demonstrate that being unable to see people's negative qualities can make us vulnerable to deception, and make it easy for others to exploit us. However, Austen does not explicitly state, "Being naïve turns people into willing victims." She only demonstrates, through the story's plot, how Jane's own naïveté makes it that much harder for her to secure a marriage with Mr. Bingley. In order to get to the heart of a satirist's message, we have to be able to see the different patterns in the plot. Satire is contempt The author of a satire is, above all, showing contempt for the subject of their work. The example above shows Screwtape's contempt for humanity in general. But even humourous works, such as Pride and Prejudice, use contempt. Mr. Bennet's cousin, Mr. Collins, is depicted as a very contemptable man throughout the whole book: Mr. Collins was not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society, the greatest part of his life having been spent under the guidance of an illiterate and miserly father; and though he belonged to one of the universities, he had merely kept the necessary terms without forming at it any useful acquaintance. The subjection in which his father had brought him up had given him originally great humility of manner; but it was now a good deal counteracted by the self-conceit of a weak head, living in retirement, and the consequential feelings of early and unexpected prosperity. A fortunate chance had recommended him to Lady Catherine De Bourgh when the living of Hunsford was vacant; and the respect which he felt for her high rank and his veneration for her as his patroness, mingling with a very good opinion of himself, of his authority as a clergyman, and his right as a rector, made him altogether a mixture of pride and obsequiousness, self-importance and humility. Jane Austen is saying that, because Mr. Collins was uneducated, he allowed his sudden wealth at the hands of Lady Catherine de Bourgh go to his head, and make him think that he was more important than he really was. If he were more intelligent, he would not have fallen prey to self-deception. Furthermore, he is shown through the whole book as an annoying, pretentious man whom almost none of the characters like or listen to. He is almost pitiable. It is clear that Austen has a lot of contempt for this man. Satire is correction An author's goal in writing a satire is to bring about change. The satirist does this in two ways. The first is by showing us what we are doing wrong: It is, no doubt, impossible to prevent his praying for his mother, but we have means of rendering the prayers innocuous. Make sure that they are always very "spiritual", that he is always concerned with the state of her soul and never with her rheumatism. Two advantages follow. In the first place, his attention will be kept on what he regards as her sins, by which, with a little guidance from you, he can be induced to mean any of her actions which are inconvenient or irritating to himself. Thus you can keep rubbing the wounds of the day a little sorer even while he is on his knees; the operation is not at all difficult and you will find it very entertaining. The author is using this passage to tell us, "Heed my warning! Do not focus only on spiritual well-being! Do not ignore the physical! Do not focus on others' sins! If you do this, you will be playing right into the Devil's hands!" The second way the author brings about change is by showing us what we can do right. C. S. Lewis does this whenever Screwtape tells Wormwood what to avoid, what makes humans difficult to tempt: The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below. By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result? Here, the author is telling us, "Logic is the Devil's enemy! Strengthen your powers of reasoning, and you will be safe from him." See also How to tell the difference References